Identification of Complex Health Interventions Suitable for Evaluation: Development and Validation of the 8-Step Scoping Framework.
complex interventions
early years
evaluation
multistakeholder provision
Journal
JMIR research protocols
ISSN: 1929-0748
Titre abrégé: JMIR Res Protoc
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101599504
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 Mar 2019
05 Mar 2019
Historique:
received:
08
02
2018
accepted:
10
11
2018
revised:
24
05
2018
entrez:
6
3
2019
pubmed:
6
3
2019
medline:
6
3
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There is extensive literature on the methodology of evaluation research and the development and evaluation of complex interventions but little guidance on the formative stages before evaluation and how to work with partner organizations that wish to have their provision evaluated. It is important to be able to identify suitable projects for evaluation from a range of provision and describe the steps required, often with academic institutions working in partnership with external organizations, in order to set up an evaluation. However, research evaluating programs or interventions rarely discusses these stages. This study aimed to extend work on evaluability assessment and pre-evaluation planning by proposing an 8-Step Scoping Framework to enable the appraisal of multiple programs in order to identify interventions suitable for evaluation. We aimed to add to the literature on evaluability assessment and more recent evaluation guidance by describing the processes involved in working with partner organizations. This paper documents the steps required to identify multiple complex interventions suitable for process and outcome evaluation. The steps were developed using an iterative approach by working alongside staff in a local government organization, to build an evidence base to demonstrate which interventions improve children's outcomes. The process of identifying suitable programs for evaluation, thereby establishing the pre-evaluation steps, was tested using all Flying Start provision. The 8-Step Scoping Framework was described using the example of the local government organization Flying Start to illustrate how each step contributes to finding projects suitable for process and outcome evaluation: (1) formulating overarching key questions that encompass all programs offered by an organization, (2) gaining an in-depth understanding of the work and provision of an organization and engaging staff, (3) completing a data template per project/program offered, (4) assessing the robustness/validity of data across all programs, (5) deciding on projects suitable for evaluation and those requiring additional data, (6) negotiating with chosen project leads, both within and outside the organization, (7) developing individual project evaluation protocols, and (8) applying for ethical approval from the university and partner organization. This paper describes the processes involved in identifying suitable projects for evaluation. It adds to the existing literature on the assessment of specific programs suitable for evaluation and guidance for conducting evaluations by establishing the formative steps required to identify suitable programs from a range of provision. This scoping framework particularly relates to academic partners and organizations tasked with delivering evidence-based services designed to meet local needs. The steps identified have been described in the context of early years provision but can be applied to a range of community-based evaluations, or more generally, to cases where an academic partner is working with external stakeholders to identify projects suitable for academic evaluation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
There is extensive literature on the methodology of evaluation research and the development and evaluation of complex interventions but little guidance on the formative stages before evaluation and how to work with partner organizations that wish to have their provision evaluated. It is important to be able to identify suitable projects for evaluation from a range of provision and describe the steps required, often with academic institutions working in partnership with external organizations, in order to set up an evaluation. However, research evaluating programs or interventions rarely discusses these stages.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to extend work on evaluability assessment and pre-evaluation planning by proposing an 8-Step Scoping Framework to enable the appraisal of multiple programs in order to identify interventions suitable for evaluation. We aimed to add to the literature on evaluability assessment and more recent evaluation guidance by describing the processes involved in working with partner organizations.
METHODS
METHODS
This paper documents the steps required to identify multiple complex interventions suitable for process and outcome evaluation. The steps were developed using an iterative approach by working alongside staff in a local government organization, to build an evidence base to demonstrate which interventions improve children's outcomes. The process of identifying suitable programs for evaluation, thereby establishing the pre-evaluation steps, was tested using all Flying Start provision.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The 8-Step Scoping Framework was described using the example of the local government organization Flying Start to illustrate how each step contributes to finding projects suitable for process and outcome evaluation: (1) formulating overarching key questions that encompass all programs offered by an organization, (2) gaining an in-depth understanding of the work and provision of an organization and engaging staff, (3) completing a data template per project/program offered, (4) assessing the robustness/validity of data across all programs, (5) deciding on projects suitable for evaluation and those requiring additional data, (6) negotiating with chosen project leads, both within and outside the organization, (7) developing individual project evaluation protocols, and (8) applying for ethical approval from the university and partner organization.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This paper describes the processes involved in identifying suitable projects for evaluation. It adds to the existing literature on the assessment of specific programs suitable for evaluation and guidance for conducting evaluations by establishing the formative steps required to identify suitable programs from a range of provision. This scoping framework particularly relates to academic partners and organizations tasked with delivering evidence-based services designed to meet local needs. The steps identified have been described in the context of early years provision but can be applied to a range of community-based evaluations, or more generally, to cases where an academic partner is working with external stakeholders to identify projects suitable for academic evaluation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30835240
pii: v8i3e10075
doi: 10.2196/10075
pmc: PMC6423464
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e10075Informations de copyright
©Rosemary Davidson, Gurch Randhawa, Stephanie Cash. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (http://www.researchprotocols.org), 05.03.2019.
Références
BMJ. 1999 Mar 13;318(7185):711-5
pubmed: 10074018
J Public Health Manag Pract. 1998 Mar;4(2):37-47
pubmed: 10186732
Public Adm Rev. 1983 Jan-Feb;43(1):66-71
pubmed: 10259244
BMJ. 2000 Sep 16;321(7262):694-6
pubmed: 10987780
BMJ. 2004 Jan 31;328(7434):282-5
pubmed: 14751903
Nurs Res. 2006 Mar-Apr;55(2 Suppl):S37-42
pubmed: 16601633
BMJ. 2007 Mar 3;334(7591):455-9
pubmed: 17332585
Cognition. 2008 Feb;106(2):1047-58
pubmed: 17560971
Lancet. 2008 Nov 8;372(9650):1641-7
pubmed: 18994661
Annu Rev Public Health. 2010;31:213-33
pubmed: 20235852
Milbank Q. 2011 Jun;89(2):206-25
pubmed: 21676021
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jun 13;(6):CD002020
pubmed: 22696327
Int J Nurs Stud. 2013 May;50(5):587-92
pubmed: 23159157
Pediatr Obes. 2014 Oct;9(5):339-50
pubmed: 23818487
J Sch Health. 2013 Dec;83(12):833-41
pubmed: 24261517
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2014 Aug;53(8):879-87, 887.e1-2
pubmed: 25062595
BMJ. 2015 Mar 19;350:h1258
pubmed: 25791983
Public Health. 2016 Jul;136:101-8
pubmed: 27184820